(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)
Objection: Global warming has been going on for the last 20,000 years.
Answer: It is true that 20,000 years ago the temperature was some 8 to 10° C colder than it is today. But to draw a line from that point to today and say, "look, 20K years of global warming!" is dubious and arbitrary at best.
If you have look at this graph of temperature, starting at a point when we were finishing the climb out of deep glaciation, you can clearly see that rapid warming ceased around 10,000 years ago (rapid relative to natural fluctuations, but not compared to the warming today, which is an order of magnitude faster). After a final little lift 8,000 years ago, temperature trended downward for the entire period of the Holocene. So the post-industrial revolution warming is the reversal of a many-thousand-year trend.
A closer look at today's trend, within the context of the last 1,000 and 2,000 years, makes it even clearer that today's trend is striking -- opposite to what one would expect without anthropogenic interference.
![]()
(Courtesy of Global
Warming Art. See source for details on the various reconstructions
tangled above.)
If you really want to play the "global warming started X years ago" game, you should talk about how we're reversing a 5-million-year cooling trend -- or go crazy and track global temperatures right back to the origins of the planet! Not that there'd be much point ...
Comments View as Flat
darudethedj Posted 1:40 am
20 Feb 2007
The mind of the skeptic
An in depth article looking at why some "prominent figures" believe that man made global warming is a myth. It's important to know the enemy!
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 2:08 am
20 Feb 2007
ChartJunk
This is a good example of chart junk -- where the visuals overwhelm the data. The link supporting that chart says:
So, first of all, it says that this chart may be inaccurate and yet, we're still going to run off and make policy decisions using it!
Second, look at the scale. Even the black line goes no higher than a 0.4C ( .5 to .7 degrees Fahrenheit ) anomaly. All of the others fall within statistical range of the Medieval Warm Period.
This chart shows clearly that global warming is naturogenic, not anthrogenic.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 2:36 am
20 Feb 2007
umm, jabailo
It's hard to extrapolate data from more than 100 years ago, when the records began to be kept. That's why there's uncertainty in the past. However, the range of uncertainty in the past is far below the certainty of the present both in terms of range and directionality: notice how the lines converge and all go up???
Jeez, way to be a troll.
Permalink
DaveR Posted 10:10 am
28 Feb 2007
I'm confused by your 8-10 degrees cooler comment
On page 2 of the Jones/Mann report: "Climate Over Past Millennia (ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/JonesMannROG04.pdf), it states that at the last glacial maximum 21,000 years ago, global annual mean temperatures were about 4 degrees C colder than today. Why the discrepancy between your 8-10 degrees cooler figure and Jones/Mann's 4 degrees?
Dave
Permalink
Paul Wagner Posted 9:47 am
18 Jun 2007
Past Warming
In the Pacific Northwest one finds Douglas-fir trees 600-800 years old at higher elevations than their natural range today. They date from the medievel warm period. In Alaska and in some of those Douglas-fir stands are found yellow cedars that are declining or dying because of early soil warming and late frosts. Many of these trees date from the little ice age.
Douglas-fir expanded its range when things were warmer and yellow cedar when it was colder.
Evidence of past fluctuations and current change is very visible if you know what you are looking at.
Permalink